• International Commerce and Information Review
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.197-211
• /
• 2005

본 논문에서는 상거래과정에서 발생하는 분쟁해결을 위하여 적용가능한 ODR시스템의 특성과 선진국의 ODR의 시험 운영사례를 통하여 이에 따른 문제점을 분석하였다. 또한 국제상거래의 분쟁해결수단으로 일반화되고 있는 중재에 대하여 온라인중재의 도입에 따른 법적인 문제를 검토하고, 이러한 분석 검토결과를 토대로 ODR의 발전방안을 제시하였다. ODR은 신속성, 비용의 경제성, 해결방법의 개선 등의 장점으로 인하여 온라인에서 발생한 분쟁뿐만 아니라 오프라인에서 발생한 분쟁까지도 그 영역이 확대되어 가고 있으며, 앞으로 전자정부에서도 이를 채택하게 됨에 따라 급격히 발전할 것으로 생각된다. 최근의 상거래분쟁이 복잡하고 전문성이 요구되며, 신속한 해결을 지향하고 있으므로 종래 ADR제도의 장점과 정보 통신적 요소를 가미한 새로운 ODR제도를 도입 추진하는 것이 무엇보다도 중요하다고 할 수 있으며, 이를 위하여 ODR제도의 정통성과 실효성을 확보할 필요가 있다.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.13 no.1
• /
• pp.169-205
• /
• 2003

Arbitration means the procedure that a party inquires a third party arbitrator for a resolution on the dispute on certain matters of interest to follow through with the commitment of the arbitration, and a series of procedures performed by the arbitrator of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board. Arbitration is implemented in accordance with the procedure determined by the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations. In the event the parties reach to the reconciliation during the process of arbitration, the reconciliation is recorded in the form of arbitration award(decision), and in the event a reconciliation is not made, the arbitrator shall make the decision on the particular case. The arbitration award(decision) for reconciliation during the arbitration procedure (Article 31 of Arbitration Act, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') or the mediation under the Arbitration Regulation of the Korean Commercial Arbitration Board (Article 18 of the Arbitration Regulations) shall have the same effectiveness with the decision rendered by a court that, in the event a party does not perform the obligation, the enforcement document is rendered under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court to carry out the compulsory enforcement. However, in the event that the party to take on the obligation to perform under the arbitration award (decision) rendered by the arbitrator (Article 32 of the Act) does not perform without due cause, a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act shall be obtained since the arbitration award(decision) cannot be the basis of enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. And, in order to enforce the judgment compulsorily in accordance with the regulations under the Civil Enforcement Act under the foreign arbitration judgment (Article 39 of the A.1), it shall fulfill the requirement determined under the Civil Litigation Act (article 217 of Civil Litigation Act) and shall obtain a separate enforcement decision in accordance with the procedure determined under the Civil Enforcement Act (Article 26 and Article 27 of Civil Enforcement Act) since the arbitration judgment of foreign country shall not be based on enforcement under the Civil Enforcement Act. It may be the issue of legislation not to recognize the arbitration award(decision) as a source of enforcement right, and provide the compulsive enforcement by recognizing it for enforcement right after obtaining the enforcement document with the decision of a court, however, not recognizing the arbitration award(decision) as the source of enforcement right is against Clause 3 of Article 31 of the Act, provisions of Article 35, Article 38 and Article 39 that recognized the validity of arbitration as equal to the final judgment of a court, and the definition that the enforcement decision of a court shall require the in compulsory enforcement under Clause 1 of Article 37 of the Act which clearly is a conflict of principle as well. Anyhow, in order to enforce the arbitration award(decision) mandatorily, the party shall bring the litigation of enforcement decision claim to the court, and the court shall deliberate with the same procedure with general civil cases under the Civil Litigation Act. During the deliberation, the party obligated under the arbitration award(decision) intended to not to undertake the obligation and delay it raises the claim and suspend the enforcement of cancelling the arbitration award(decision) on the applicable arbitration decision within 3 months from the date of receiving the authentic copy of the arbitration award(decision) or the date of receiving the authentic copy of correction, interpretation or additional decision under the Regulation of Article 34 of the Act (Clause 3 of Article 36 of the Act). This legislation to delay the sentencing of the enforcement and then to sentence the enforcement decision brings the difficulties to a party to litigation costs and time for compulsory enforcement where there is a requirement of an urgency. With the most of cases for arbitration being the special field to make the decision only with the specialized knowledge that the arbitrator shall be the specialists who have appropriate knowledge of the system and render the most reasonable and fair decision for the arbitration. However, going through the second review by a court would be most important, irreparable and serious factor to interfere with the activation of the arbitration system. The only way to activate the arbitration system that failed to secure the practicality due to such a factor, is to revise the Arbitration Act and Arbitration Regulations so that the arbitration decision shall have the right to enforce under the Rules on Enforcement Document on Mediation Statement of various dispute resolution committees of the Supreme Court.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.3-31
• /
• 2019

In order to achieve full-scale economic cooperation between North Korea and South Korea, the Gaesong Industrial Complex should reopen first. In this case, the Inter-Korean commercial arbitration system should be clearly established to effectively resolve the disputes arising in the special economic zones of the Gaesong Industrial Complex. Even though the Inter-Korean Investment Security Agreement, the Agreement on the Resolution of Commercial Disputes between North Korea and South Korea, the Agreement on the Formation and Operation of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee, and the Agreement on the Formation and Operation of the Inter-Korean Commercial Arbitration Committee in the Gaesong Industrial District are in place, specific arbitration procedure is not concretely agreed upon and realized between the two Koreas. Therefore, the realization of commercial arbitration between them led by the Ministry of Unification or the government should be accomplished. In addition, it is necessary to consider the administrative trial or administrative litigation system in order to deal with administrative disputes that are not subject to commercial arbitration. Lastly, discussions on legal integration between the two Koreas should continue, focusing on the special economic zone of the Gaesong Industrial Complex, in order to prevent integration from being hindered by a different culture for a long time.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.55-84
• /
• 2013

There should be an arbitration agreement between concerned parties in order to resolve a dispute through arbitration. The arbitration procedures, including the selection of the arbitrator and the adjudicative rights of the arbitrator, are based on the arbitration agreement. In other words, the arbitration procedure and adjudication can be carried out within the boundaries of the arbitration agreement. Traditionally, the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement has been acknowledged in order to emphasize its importance and to clearly separate it from the contract. Today, when the Doctrine of Separability of the arbitration agreement is well established, overemphasizing this separability could hamper its effectiveness and the autonomy of the parties. Moreover, arbitration agreements in the past were required to be written, clarifying the existence of the agreement and determining the scope of its validity. Further, an arbitration agreement was considered as narrowly as possible. However, since arbitration has become a generalized resolution for disputes, the formal or content requirements should be reconsidered. In terms of validity, the subjective and objective scope should necessarily be extended as a means to resolve disputes related to an arbitration agreement and reduce the resolution cost and duration. Under this perspective, the arbitration theory should now focus on arbitration agreements rather than the place of arbitration. We should break from the nationalistic view, which understands that the arbitration system is a part of the national legal system and that arbitration is allowed solely by permission of the nation. Instead, we should extensively reinterpret the subject of arbitration agreement and its range of effects so that disputes can be resolved between the concerned parties under a single procedure and norm, a necessary step forward. Moreover, in spite of the positive contribution and role of the New York Convention toward the establishment and development of the international arbitration system, there should be an effort to overcome its deterioration. As mentioned in the recommendations regarding the interpretation of the arbitration agreement in the New York Convention in 2006, we should begin by striving to match the Convention as a means of interpretation with the changes of the twenty-first century. Ultimately, we should meet the demands of the new era through amendments to the Convention.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.35-53
• /
• 2018

The purpose of this paper is to focus on the development of the arbitration system, such as the establishment of the arbitration industry and expanding the scope of arbitration fields. The solution method of arbitration differs greatly from that of the court's trial process. This can be seen in the way of autonomous conflict resolution. Therefore, the role of arbitrator is a very important function. In this sense, it seems necessary to establish a professional arbitrator system. Now the Arbitration Promotion Act has been enacted and interest in the arbitration industry is also rising. It is necessary to deal effectively with new incidents according to changes in the legal environment internationally. In order to do this, it is imperative to train professional arbitrators. A training plan for arbitration manager to assist this is now under consideration. The coming of the Fourth Industrial Revolution and the growth of artificial intelligence (AI) technology will simply stop the uniform way of determining winners by lawsuits. Even in new companies entering new markets as well as overseas companies, assistance from arbitration experts is indispensable in order to effectively deal with international trade disputes that will develop in the future. In addition to fostering the arbitration industry, it is necessary to train experts in domestic and foreign arbitration and arbitration practitioners to provide high-quality legal services. For these human resource development measures, we will explore the subject and procedural methods. The Arbitrators Association should concentrate on these matters and be cautious when focusing on the training of arbitrators and arbitration managers through the selection process. The Arbitrators Association must strengthen the level of new education (designation / consignment). Measures must be taken in order to grant such procedures as well as subsequent steps.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.99-125
• /
• 2014

The purpose of this paper is to introduce the arbitral proceeding system in Indonesia. Arbitration in Indonesia is governed by Law No. 30 of 1999 on Arbitration and Alternative Dispute Resolution (Arbitration Law). Also, the Indonesian National Board of Arbitration (BANI) is the main arbitration body in Indonesia. BANI handles both domestic and international disputes. BANI has published its Rules of Arbitral Procedure (the BANI Rules). Within a period of not longer than 30 days after receiving the petition for arbitration, the respondent must submit its reply. Also, if the respondent wishes to assert against the claimant a counter-claim in connection with the dispute, the respondent may submit such counter-claim together with its statement of defense no later than the first hearing. This paper suggests that the following may be some of the disadvantages to using arbitration under the BANI Rules. The first is that final decision or approval regarding the designation of all arbitrators shall be in the hands of the Chairman of BANI. It is the chief problem facing the international stream of arbitration systems. The second is that arbitrators must have certain minimum qualifications. BANI Rules provide the same requirements for the qualifications of the arbitrators as the Arbitration Law. The third is that the BANI Rules require arbitrators in BANI-administered references to be chosen from BANI's list of arbitrators. BANI can also consider a recognized foreign arbitrator if the foreign arbitrator meets the qualification requirements and is prepared to comply with the BANI Rules. This includes the requirement that the appointing party must bear the travel, accommodation, and other special expenses related to the appointment of the foreign arbitrator.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.53-85
• /
• 2022

Small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") are vulnerable to trade secret misappropriation. Korea's legislation for the protection of SMEs' trade secrets and provision of civil, criminal, and administrative remedies includes the SME Technology Protection Act, the Unfair Competition Prevention Act, the Industrial Technology Protection Act, the Mutually Beneficial Cooperation Act, and the Subcontracting Act. Among these acts, the revised SME Technology Protection Act of 2018 introduced the "administrative technology misappropriation investigation system" to facilitate a rapid resolution of SMEs' technology misappropriation disputes. On September 27, 2021, Korea's Ministry of SMEs announced that it had reached an agreement to resolve the dispute between Hyundai Heavy Industries and Samyeong Machinery through the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system. However, not until 3 years and a few months passed since the introduction of the system could it be used to resolve an SME's technology misappropriation dispute with a large corporation. So there arose a question on the usefulness of the system. Therefore, we conducted a comparative legal analysis of Korea's laws enacted to protect trade secrets of SMEs and to address technology misappropriation, focusing on their legislative purpose, protected subject matter, types of misappropriation, and legal remedies. Then we analyzed the administrative technology misappropriation investigation system and the cases where this system was applied. We developed a proposal to enhance the usefulness of the system. The expert interviews of 4 attorneys who are experienced in the management of the system to check the practical value of the proposal. Our analysis shows that the lack of compulsory investigation and criminal sanctions is the fundamental limitation of the system. We propose revising the SME Technology Protection Act to provide correction orders, criminal sanctions, and compulsory investigation. We also propose training professional workforces to conduct digital forensics, enabling terminated SMEs to utilize the system, and assuring independence and fairness of the mediation and arbitration of the technology misappropriation disputes.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.77-98
• /
• 2021

International commercial mediation of intellectual property rights fully meets the interests of the parties in such disputes in terms of their needs for neutral forum of dispute resolution, cost-effective settlement, objective opinion of relevant experts, internationally enforceable solution. In addition, as a procedural flexibility, respected self-determination of the parties, exploration of possible creative business solutions, maintenance of business relationship and confidentiality of mediation are major characteristics which can be competitively differentiated from the lawsuit or arbitration. The settlement agreement as a result of the WIPO mediation has an effect of contract while the settlement agreement as a result of most domestic ones has an effect of judicial reconciliation which can be domestically enforced. The latter is not subject to the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation which establishes a harmonized legal framework for the right to invoke settlement agreements as well as for their enforcement. The WIPO international mediation system and its experience may be a good reference for Korea to take an initiative to establish a globally competitive international mediation system in the area of intellectual property rights.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.28 no.2
• /
• pp.91-110
• /
• 2018

Consumers repeatedly make small sum purchases through business-to-consumer contracts, usually without incident. Consumer areas have been increasing; therefore, consumer disputes have been occurring frequently as well. In international consumer transactions, it is not easy to solve consumer disputes by applying the laws of different countries. Resolving disputes by using the consumer arbitration system can be a measure to protect consumers. In the U.S., a class arbitration is being operated as a mixed dispute resolution system of class action and arbitration. Consumer Arbitration has long been a controversial issue in the U.S. It is therefore a lesson for us to examine related cases. A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision, DIRECTV v. Imburgia, was looked into and after a summary of the facts, issues, and opinions and opposing opinions that had a tight controversy, a close analysis was done. The analysis through this judgment is as follows: first, the contraction of consumer protection; second, the expansion of the Federal Arbitration Act scope; third, the class arbitration's restriction; and fourth, the submission of the arbitration fairness act.

• Journal of Arbitration Studies
• /
• v.20 no.3
• /
• pp.25-46
• /
• 2010

In spite of great interest and recent innovation of the legislative system in the Arbitration and other Alternative Dispute Resolution(ADR) system, In Japan there have been only a few case in which International commercial dispute was settled through the Arbitration compared to other countries. However, we can easily expect that foreign arbitral awards which need to be recognized and enforced in Japan will gradually increase and this makes it very important for us to review the Japanese legislative system regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. In this paper, I focused on the relations between applicable laws(including convention) regarding recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in Japan and some issues concerning refusal of recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Japan is a member state of several multilateral conventions concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards including the New York Convention of 1958 and at least 20 bilateral agreements which include provisions in relate to the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. Therefore there are some legal issues about the priority application between multilateral and bilateral agreements in relate to Article 7(1) of the New York Convention. In Japan, as I mentioned in this paper, there are incoherent opinions concerning this issue. To solve it substantially it would seem appropriate to build up concrete and explicit provisions concerning the application of priority between multilateral and bilateral agreements. On the other hand, in relate to the application between the New York Convention and National Law, it is necessary to take general approach regarding the priority application between Convention (Treaty) and National Law, considering the national application of conventions under the Constitutional System of each country. Among the grounds for non-recognition/enforcement, there are the ones that are decided under the law of the requested country, for instance, arbitrability and public policy. It would therefore be possible that some foreign arbitral awards would not be recognized in Japan especially relating to the arbitrability because its scope in Japan is not so large. Regarding the enforcement of awards annulled in their place of origin, some positive opinions in recent Japanese legal discussions, say that annulled awards should be enforced as a counter strategy of developed countries and judiciary discretion of the requested country would be needed. As mentioned in this paper, the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards is closely related to judicial policy of the requested country as the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment is. Even though there existed uniform rules on recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards like the New York convention, each country has different internal legal status of conventions under its own Constitutional System and tends to interpret the provisions based in its own profit. Therefore, it is necessary to review, in the light of conflict of laws, the national legislative system including legal status of conventions of the requested countries concerning recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards.